| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 07:44:27 +0000 From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> Cc: Ley Foon Tan <lftan@...era.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Generic syscall ABI support On Thursday 28 March 2013, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 03/27/2013 08:09 PM, Ley Foon Tan wrote: > > The question is, is it a requirement for new arch to support generic > > syscall ABI when upstreaming? Can we upstream a non-generic syscall ABI > > first and migrate to generic syscall ABI in future? > > Thanks. > > In general, you should use the generic ABI for a new port unless you > have very strong and convincing reasons not to. Yes, absolutely. What a couple of the previous architectures have done is to keep out of tree patches for their old ABI for a while, and to submit only code that follows the generic ABI upstream. Usually it doesn't take long for users to migrate to a new user space after that, but it gives people a migration strategy. Normally you have other patches that are required on top of the stuff that is already upstream while you are getting everything merged, so this is not much different to a device driver that needs to get rewritten to adapt to a new kernel subsystem. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists